CEQA

Subscribe to CEQA via RSS

By William W. Abbott

The Fourth Appellate District recently faced a similar CEQA timing question to that posed in Save Tara. Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District (Gregory Canyon Ltd) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 186, (reissued and ordered published January 30). The case involved a landfill operator, who applied for and received County approval to operate a landfill. This approval was preceded by an EIR, which was challenged for adequacy by Riverwatch and the City of Oceanside. The trial court agreed with Riverwatch that the water supply analysis was insufficient, and that as the EIR recognized that recycled water from the water district might be used in the event that groundwater proved to be insufficient, that the EIR had to assess the potential impacts associated with the use of the offsite recycled water. The trial court ruled in favor of the opponents and ordered the County to set aside the EIR approval.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Directs Developer-District Recycled Water Agreement To Be Set Aside Based Upon CEQA Violation

The Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit announced that they will not be accepting CEQA documents for review or processing on the first and third Fridays of each month, now through June 30, 2010. This notice is in response to the state agency furlough ordered by the Governor which has required the State Clearinghouse to close their doors two days per month for the next year and a half.
Continue Reading CEQA Notice Postings and Review Periods Affected by State Agency Furloughs

By Leslie Z. Walker

Six months after releasing its Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review (see OPR on CEQA and Climate Change: Local Agencies Continue to Bear the Heat), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions on January 8, 2009.The Guideline amendments were developed in response to Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007; Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05) which directs OPR to develop draft CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009.
Continue Reading No Surprises in Draft CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Glen Hansen

In Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District addressed some of procedural traps that can befall unwary litigants who seek to bring CEQA challenges to local land use decisions including subdivision approval.
Continue Reading CEQA Practioners Beware: Your Petition Challenging Approval Of A Subdivision Under CEQA May Be Summarily Dismissed If You Don’t Comply With The Subdivision Map Act

By Michelle Engel

The Air Resources Board (“ARB” or “Board”) has their hands full. A question and answer session, with more questions than answers, commenced on December 9, when the ARB Staff Project Team held their second public meeting to discuss the development of recommended approaches for setting thresholds for greenhouse gases (“GHG”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The task assigned to ARB has been criticized as being “impossible to achieve” given the lack of experience the ARB Staff has with local government and in dealing with CEQA.
Continue Reading Update on ARB Guidance on CEQA Thresholds: One Plan, Many Voices, Dissidents Abound

By Leslie Walker

On October 30, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 (“Save Tara”) finding that CEQA was triggered by early agreements between a city and developer, even when the agreements were expressly conditioned upon later CEQA compliance. This case will act as an impediment to many forms of agreements in the areas of redevelopment, affordable housing, and infrastructure which frequently require long-term cooperation of private developers and public agencies.
Continue Reading For CEQA, Project Commitment Is Still A Question Of Fact

By Cori Badgley

In Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District grappled with several issues related to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) along with the Senate Bill 610 water supply analysis, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and general plan consistency. Among the court’s various holdings, the court found examples of improper deferral of mitigation under CEQA. Additionally, the court refined the definition of a “probable future project” for purposes of cumulative impacts. The project at issue involved the development of an aggregate mining operation in the unincorporated area of Madera County ("County").Continue Reading Court Discusses Improper Deferral of CEQA Mitigation and Provides Definition for “Probable Future Projects”

By Leslie Z. Walker and Cori M. Badgley

California’s land use planning structure has long been governed by a philosophy of home rule. Periodically, the legislature has identified specific typical areas for state intrusion: housing policy and airport land use planning are two examples. Among other provisions, SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes 2008) reflects a new area of state intervention, brought on by the rising concern over global warming. This time, it is through the regional transportation planning process, with the apparent thinking that once you control the purse strings, local governments will fall into line. SB 375’s major elements are:…
Continue Reading SB 375: A Subtle Shift in the State-Local Long Range Planning Paradigm

By Leslie Z. Walker

For the two years following passage of Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes 2006), practitioners have wrestled with establishing the level at which a project’s contribution to global climate change is considered to be significant for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
Continue Reading ARB Guidance on CEQA Thresholds: Not Every Bit Counts, and CEQA Exemptions Apply